In spite of revealing to mankind the immense power of the atom, and in spite of their international proliferation, the Lord has thus far extremely limited the use of nuclear weapons and by them– ironically– to compel nations to come together and search for ways of peace.
]]>On the one hand, his observations seem pretty sound and well-reasoned to me. On the other hand, his office represents an Eschatological kingdom. My unease arise, I guess, from the sense that comments on a countries defense posture, however legitimate, can be seen to align him more with the City of Man than the City of God – and a very particular City at that. (This sort of plays into the Catholic critique that the Orthodox tend to be toadies of Secular powers.) Hard to imagine the Ambassador of God’s kingdom getting entangled- as St. Paul says (2 Tim 2:4) – in another countries business unless and until it touches on the kingdom. He can certainly articulate the principles and precepts of the Kingdom that could guide the judgment of Russia’s leaders, but – beyond that – it’s his opinion. I guess I would prefer Bishops and Patriarchs to stay firmly within the tradition, articulate foundational precepts and perspectives, and leave the application to the experts in their specific fields – whether it is national defense, finance or ecology.
]]>Weapons, in and of themselves are morally neutral. They can be used for good or evil. When the church comes out in favor of a particular weapon it seems to give it a moral patina it does not deserve. If the priest at my church told me that I should have a gun, I would not be long for that church.
]]>